Needham v. Judson
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Tort for breaking the plaintiff’s close in Newton. Trial and verdict for the defendant, in the superior court, before Brigham, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions of which the following are the material parts : The defendant, being the owner of the lots marked A and B on the subjoined plan, and also of the fee in the private way, and having formerly owned lots C and D, in 1860 conveyed to Henry A. Barker “ a certain piece of land,” being lot A, “bounded and described as…
Read the full summary
Tort for breaking the plaintiff’s close in Newton. Trial and verdict for the defendant, in the superior court, before Brigham, J., who allowed a bill of exceptions of which the following are the material parts : The defendant, being the owner of the lots marked A and B on the subjoined plan, and also of the fee in the private way, and having formerly owned lots C and D, in 1860 conveyed to Henry A. Barker “ a certain piece of land,” being lot A, “bounded and described as follows: Commencing at a point two hundred and fifty feet torn Washington Street on the line of a private way, and running…
1Opinion of the CourtColt, J.
In the opinion of the court, upon a true construction of this bill of exceptions and the accompanying deeds and plans, the instructions to the jury must be held erroneous. It seems to have been assumed by all parties, at the trial below and in the argument here, that the place of beginning of the description in the deed from the defendant and his wife to the plaintiff was at a point two hundred and fifty feet from Washington Street, in the east instead of the west side of the private way described. We find nothing in the papers which sustains this idea. The description is much more perfect…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Temple v. BensonMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1912
- Cetlin v. BradfordMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1922
- Holt v. City of SomervilleMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1877